TWIN EXPLOSION: The Current Debt System has Reached it’s Expiration Date (Part 2) - The dominance of Cartels and Banks in Europe

The budget deficits of European countries
have increased 8-fold in 2010, compared with 2007, reaching -581 Billion Euros,
from -60 Billion Euros previously. Of these, -360 Billion Euros are attributed to the five most dangerous «countries
of the South», which quadrupled their deficits in just three years.
According now to the prevailing view of Euro-zone governments, accountable for
these outcomes are solely the countries themselves, that were proven incapable
of managing their own financial problems – despite the fact that in many of
these countries, like for example Greece, the annual interest charges are now
approaching nearly 30% of government revenues.

Continuing, the Euro-zone private sector in
2000, the multinational companies in particular, had reached a combined funding
deficit of -202 Billion Euros. Ten years later, in 2010, the deficit had
converted into a surplus of 82 Billion Euros – of which, 55 Billion Euros of
surplus was attributable to German companies, which in 2000 had a deficit of
-129 Billion Euros. Across the European
Union as a whole now, the total deficit of businesses, around -346 Billion
Euros in 2000, converted into a 300 Billion Euros surplus(source:
Ringier AG, CH. Ringier is a major media company in Switzerland, Zurich
It publishes over 120 newspapers/magazines. It was founded in 1833).

In 2000 now, European (multinational) companies were financing their investments
in a natural way – partly from their equity capital, as well as from credit
obtained by banks. Today, these companies are practically receiving 300 Billion
Euros in excess of what they spend on their products, wages, taxes and
investments – since their balance sheets show a surplus of this amount
(«over-charging» their products obviously). At the same time, they sell goods
valued at 300 Billion Euros on credit.

Since these companies now have increased
their receivables (company demands), and at the same time reduced their
payable’s (debt), states or
households then have either increased their debt levels or decreased their
savings levels. In reality, household savings halved between 2000 and 2007
– from 170 Billion Euros to 84 Billion Euros.

Furthermore, since the beginning of the
crisis, the private financial sector surpluses increased by 500 Billion Euros in
the 27 member EU – with the corresponding deficits burdening the state coffers.
This of course is not surprising, since
governments, for the first time in history, took on the bad debts of banks
(indirectly reinforcing the profitable ones), while at the same time funding
efforts to reinvigorate the economy.

To conclude, this development did not work
equally in all countries, since in those that experienced an increase in wage
levels, along with an increase in productivity (Greece, Spain, etc.), effects
on corporate profits were very little. On
the contrary, in countries like Germany, where real wages dropped considerably,
company profits increased, and so did the external account balance surpluses.
At the same time, Germany increased its credit levels towards the importing
countries of the South running a deficit – a situation that will be proven
rather painful for the country’s economy in the future (bad debts).

INTERIM CONCLUSIONS

The global economy, despite the «treatment»
it was put through by Reagan-Thatcher, did not grow faster compared with the
previous period – meaning, it has not
benefited from the privatizations, the liberalization of markets and the
«opening» of closed professions.

And in stark contrast with the «new world
order» of the Anglo-Saxon School, some of the richest countries of the world,
Scandinavian, still maintain high tax rates and a large state – with public employees constituting up to
30% of the total work-force (about 12% in Greece). How do we justify this?

According to many, most people are not
working for the sole purpose of generating money – but out of interest for
their job, as well as for public «recognition», both of their personality and
the work-service they provide, by the social environment. These same people believe that the «key» towards acquiring true wealth
is access to a better education, social stability and the quality of
infrastructure – elements far more important than incentives, that stem
from the «hunt» for profit and from large income differences.

Also, quiet
often one hears that the major technological progress, as well as
globalization, are continuously generating inequalities. However, these
conclusions are not as obvious as we had assumed in the past – especially since
in countries with high technology and open borders, as for example in the «open
societies» of Sweden and Finland, inequalities are very limited.

The use of machines, as well as the free
exchange of goods and services without tariffs or other «state-imposed»
obstacles, certainly contribute to the elimination of job positions – creating
others though, in «new» areas. Of course the
government can rightfully engage in actions, that would help avoid income
inequalities – so that not only some citizens benefit from growth, but all
together (Table I):

TABLE I: The «distribution»
of income in selected European countries

Source: Eurostat

Table: V. Viliardos

Note 1: The development of
income disparities between the richest 20% and the poorest 20% of citizens
where, for example, the index 3.7 means that the income of the richest 20% of
the population of a country is 3.7 times higher than the income of the poorest
20% (on average).

Note 2: The index for China
was 8.34 in 2005 – 8.96 for Russia in 2007 and 8.42 for the U.S. in 2000 – in the EU-27, the average ratio was 10.13
in 2008, facts that highlight the huge imbalances between European countries(Source: F.E. Stiftung, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a German political
foundation established in 1925).

Continuing, there are of course economists
who also argue that the high concentration of wealth in few, is disastrous for
the growth of an economy. The higher the
income levels, the more one saves and the less the demand for consumer goods.
According to Schopenhauer:

’’People who have not inherited a
fortune, but manage to earn money using their personal abilities and skills, almost always succumb to the illusion
that their talent is the capital stock and therefore the money they acquire
through it the interest – and so they don’t save part of the acquired wealth,
in order to generate a capital, but rather spend everything they earn. On the
contrary, anyone who has grown up in inherited wealth, has learned to separate
what is capital and what is the interest, safeguarding his property with his
own life – and therefore remains neat, careful and thrifty’’.

Furthermore, the U.S. tried to fight the
concentration of wealth in few (a phenomenon they themselves created, thus
reducing consumption levels because of the low salaries the majority of workers
earned), with the help of the «consumer» loans given mainly to lower income
classes (instead of taxing heritage and the rich). But as we all know, these efforts led to the enormous global crisis we
are experiencing today, which began with the purchase of property on credit,
aiming at reselling it at a profit, so that consumption would increase – until
real estate prices collapsed, making it impossible to pay-off the loans to
banks.

So one can only wonder today, whether the massive «attack» against the
welfare state was necessary from an economic standpoint – or whether a
simple correction of the 1970?s excesses would have been enough, excesses
largely caused by labor unions.

Either way, it has been historically
proven, that capitalism can survive both under a larger and a smaller state. The question or better stated the issue of
the ideal income distribution, is therefore essentially not relevant to the
economy, but to Politics – although today’s politicians do not seem to be
able to assume their responsibilities.

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS

After the prevalence of the «smaller
state», that we described earlier, the «invisible hand of the market» was
released from its «bonds» and began moving undisturbed/unobstructed, the same
way it did before the 1930s, in the financial market.

Shortly after, two devaluations of the
dollar followed, with the famous «oil shocks» of 1973 and 1979 – accompanied by
intense, devastating recessions. The
interest rate levels exceeded the growth mediums, while modern financial
products, namely derivatives of all kinds, but all the other «products» as well
(credit cards, consumer loans at loan shark rates above 20% etc.), led to the
«trend towards higher profit hunting», i.e. from the production of products to
speculation. Table II below is typical:

Table II: The development
of the U.S. public debt in Trillions of Dollars, Public debt as a percentage of
GDP, deficit/surplus in Trillions of Dollars

*U.S. government predictions.

Source: Spiegel, Germany

Table: V. Viliardos

Note: The household debt
of the country approaches 14 Trillion Dollars (100% of GDP), and has increased
20 times, compared with the 1970?s.

The industrial groups, which marked the
growth after the 1930?s, focusing on the production of real products, «mutated»
into financial «beasts». The banks, that
up till then were at the service of the real economy, transformed into «money
alchemists». Simply stated, the «miracle» of economic growth after 1980,
took place in the financial world – with increased lending, as well as with the
constant shrinking of «real world business», i.e. the businesses that produced
goods and services (a gap that China eventually filled – the country that is
currently being characterized as the production engine of the West).

The theoretical explanation of this
undoubted fact, according to which the «invisible hand of the market» generates
wealth in the real economy, but causes destruction in the financial (economy),
is rather obvious. For example, when
demand for a product increases, its price rises – as well as the profit motive
for the «manufacturer». What happens next, is that the entrepreneur
increases the quantity produced (or new businesses enter the market, because of
the positive profit outlook), the supply that is, and therefore the price
decreases – while the balance between demand and supply is restored.

But when demand increases in financial
markets (equities etc.), followed by higher prices, supply cannot be increased
– since the quantity of shares is usually limited (of course markets use
certain «tricks», such as «splitting», i.e. the production of two or more
shares from one initial – the company though remains the same). Also, when demand for shares increases,
brokers and financial advisers usually recommend a «buy» – so,
instead of an increase in supply (as would happen in real products), demand
increases even further, and with it, the prices once again.

These conditions result in twisted price
developments of stocks, raw materials, interest rates and currencies, developments that eventually lead (mid to
long-term) to upward or downward financial markets – in other words to
depressive price fluctuations, instead of normal and balanced ones.

The second reason Adams Smiths’ «invisible
hand» operates destructively in financial markets is, that in these markets no products are created nor any real value – but
there is simply a redistribution of business generated value, among
participants. In this
«game», those who have the most information available (Goldman Sachs, BIS,
Hedge Funds, etc.), let alone «internal/insider» information, always win, while
the rest usually loose – from amateur «investors» to large pension funds.

The financial markets make it possible to
effectively disperse risks, those they themselves generate. And with the
ever-faster speculation tools (online trading – casino) available, they
eventually manage to destabilize stock prices, commodity prices etc. –selling
at the same time new «investor insurance» products (CDS etc.), that are supposed to protect «investors»
from dangers they themselves cause, thus obtaining double profits. The
developments in Greece and Ireland (many others are to follow, like for example
Spain, Belgium, Britain, the U.S. etc.), are «exemplary»:

The markets, by «betting» on Greece’s
bankruptcy, caused an increase in the country’s borrowing rates (above 10%). In
this way, the chances of a bankruptcy magnified – so the «markets» now, not
only gain from higher interest rates, but also from products they sell (CDS,
etc.), to «protect» their clients from the risk they themselves create. At the
same time, they borrow money from the ECB at a rate of 1% – and use that money
to buy government bonds, with yields close to 10%. Now if they happen to lose
their money, then they simply ask for state assistance – i.e. financial aid
«billed» on taxpayers, the same people they just tried to rob.

Finally, the funds gathered from citizens
of indebted countries, i.e. from workers and businesses, with wage reductions, taxes and other sacrifices, eventually go,
through interest rates, to these financial beasts – and as a result, public
debts continue to grow.

In reality therefore, the problem are the
«loan shark» interest rates – as well as the willingness of «people in charge»,
to compensate the «markets» for dangers they themselves create, in order to
speculate. The political elite do not
seem to understand, that the «invisible hand of the market» generates
«falsified» prices in the financial system – since, in stark contrast to
the real economy, it is unable to work in balance, i.e. to obey the laws of
supply and demand.

This twisted functioning of the financial
markets further increases insecurity, to
the detriment of business initiatives – while all the turmoil and the
economic crises since 1970, are directly linked to the instability these
unregulated markets as well as the monopolistic, multinational
hyper-businesses, generate.

CONCLUSIONS

The only solution to the systemic crisis we
are experiencing today, as far as the «markets» are concerned, is the
regulation and limiting of the financial sector – in order to drive back the healthy tendency towards profit generation
in the real economy and businesses, that produce real products, vital for
both our survival and the betterment of our quality of life.

An even better solution would most
certainly be the nationalization of the markets – namely, the nationalization
of both large banks (first and foremost the Bank of International
Settlement/BIS, which is an international organization that serves as a bank
for central banks and is currently not accountable to any single national
government), as well as national stock exchanges. This would ensure the proper functioning of the financial system
(flow of funds to the real economy, rational consumption, realistic borrowing
etc.) and would radically confront the dependence of states on greedy,
dangerous and depressive markets.

As far as the multinational monopolistic
businesses are concerned (cartels), which are also responsible for the current
systemic crisis, since they drain off national economies, it is necessary to
set limits on their sizes – in
principle, with the proper operation of the commissions responsible for issues
relating to fair competition, which have rather weakened, if not distracted
completely from the original purpose of their establishment.

Moreover, governments should not privatize
in any way public utilities (electricity, water, telecommunications, etc.),
which ought to remain in their property – operating
of course with absolute transparency (Financial Statements posted online
etc.), so that they can be controlled by responsible citizens.

Closing, we must point out to workers, that
a smaller state (privatizations etc.), means limited social benefits, as well
as lower wages for them. On the
contrary, a bigger state, translates into higher wages and more social benefits
– up to the point, of course, when their demands would «threaten» to
overpass the capacity of businesses, opening the «Pandora Box» (as happened 40
years ago and we still continue paying our dues for it).

Therefore instead of wasting their energy
on criticizing the state deficiencies, essentially playing the game the
«markets» set for them (setting various social groups into opposing camps and
dominating, by means of «divide and conquer»), it is rather wiser to contribute
actively to the good functioning of the state – without excessive demands from
companies and states, but also without
allowing the extremely dangerous privatizations to take place/continue,
which would ultimately make them slaves of the financial markets and of
monopolies (or, perhaps, colonies of the planets strongest economies).

Either way, the exit from the current, national and global crisis, cannot come
from the economic elite, but from Politics – which must be restored to
power, assuming the responsibilities for its proper functioning: by requiring a
more direct and effective democracy, with the help of new institutions.

Vassilis Viliardos is an Economist and an Author of several books on the
Greek economic crisis. He has earned his Economics degree in ASOEE (Greek
University of Economics) and in Hamburg, Germany. He lives in Athens, Greece.